İÇSEL ZAMANLI KARMA OLİGOPOL PİYASALARI: REKABET, ÖZELLEŞTİRME VE REFAH

Yıl 2009, Sayı: 25, - , 20.06.2015

Murat Sarıkaya

Öz

The objective of this study is to examine and evaluate mixed oligopoly model from theoretical standpoint. Time is considered as an exogenous factor in classical oligopoly models. The fact that time is an endogenous factor in classical oligopoly markets brings out different implications especially for welfare. A public firm’s competition with a private domestic (or a foreign) firm or both leads to different results. In that type of market, the city where a firm located is circular or linear shape closely affects the locations of the premises of the firm. A public firm must be a follower when price is regulated. A public firm should be follower when it is competing with a domestic private firm and a leader while it is competing with foreign private firm. A public firm should be privatized if it is not a monopoly. In the cases of partial privatization, the less the share of public firm, the more the privatized firms’ efficiency increases. If public firm has an objective of profit maximization instead of welfare maximization, welfare increases

Anahtar Kelimeler

Mixed Oligopoly, Endogenous Timing, Stackelberg Leader, Subgame Perfect Nash Equilibria, Foreign Competitor, Privatization

İÇSEL ZAMANLI KARMA OLİGOPOL PİYASALARI: REKABET, ÖZELLEŞTİRME VE REFAH

Öz

Bu çalışmanın amacı karma oligopol modelini teorik açıdan inceleyip değerlendirmektir. Klasik oligopol modellerinde zaman dışsal olarak ele alınmaktadır. Karma oligopol piyasasında zamanın içsel olması özellikle refah açısından farklı sonuçlar doğurmaktadır. Bir kamu firmasının yalnızca yerli (yabancı) özel firmalarla ya da her ikisi ile birlikte rekabet etmesi farklı sonuçların ortaya çıkmasına neden olmaktadır. Bu piyasa türünde firmaların faaliyette bulunduğu şehrin dairesel veya doğrusal olarak kurulmuş olması firmaların yerleşkelerini yakından etkilemektedir. Kamu firması fiyat düzenlenmesinin olduğu bir durumda takipçi olmak zorundadır. Kamu firması yerli özel firmayla rekabet ederken takipçi, yabancı özel firmayla rekabet ederken lider olarak davranmalıdır. Kamu firmasının monopol olmadığı durumda özelleştirilmesi gerekmektedir. Kısmi özelleştirme olması durumunda kamu firmasının payı ne kadar az olursa özelleştirilen firmanın etkinliği o kadar fazla artmaktadır. Kamu firmasının refah maksimizasyonu yerine kar maksimizasyonunu amaçlaması ise refahı artırmaktadır

Anahtar Kelimeler

Karma Oligopol, İçsel Zamanlama, Stackleberg Leader, Alt oyunlu Mükemmel Nash Dengesi

Kaynakça

• Anderson, Simon.A., Palma, de Andre. And Thisse, Jacques-François. (1997) “Privatization and Efficiency in a Diffrentiated Industry” European Economic Review. 41. 1635-1654.
• Barcena-Ruiz, Juan Carlos. and.Garzon, M.B. (2003). “Mixed Duopoly, Merger and Multiproduct Firms” Journal of Economics, 80. 27-42.
• Chao, Chi-Chur and. Yu, Eden S.H (2006). “Partial Privatization, Foreign Competition, and Optimum Tariff”. Review of International Economics. 14(1). 87-92.
• Cremer, Helmuth and Marchand, Jacques-François. (1991).“Mixed Oligopoly with Differentiated Products”, International Journal of Industrial Organization. 9, 43-53.
• De Faraja, Giovanni.and Delbono, Flavio. (1989). “Alternative Strategies of a Public Enterprise in Oligopoly”. Oxford Economic Papers. 41. 302-311.
• Fjell, Kenneth.and Pal, Debashis. (1996) “A Mixed Oligopoly in The Presence of Foreign Private Firms”. The Canadian Journal of Economics. 29(3). 737-743.
• Fjell, Kenneth.and Heywood, John.S. (2002) “Public Stackelberg Leadership in a Mixed Oligopoly with Foreign Firms”. Australian Economic Papers. September.267-281.
• Fjell, Kenneth.and Heywood, John.S. (2004) “Mixed Oligopoly, Subsidization and the Order of Firm’s the Relevenca of Privatization”. Economics Letters. 83. 411-416.
• Fujiwara, Kenji. (2007) “Partial Privatization in a Differentiated Mixed Oligopoly” Journal of Economics. No.1.51- 65.
• Hamilton,Jonathan H.and Slutsky, Steven M. (1990). “Endogenous Timing in Duopoly Games: Stackelberg and Cournot Equilibria”. Games and Economic Behaviour. 2. 29-46.
• Jacques, Armel. (2004). “Endogenous Timing in a Mixed Oligopoly: A Forgotten Equilibrium”. Economic Letters. 83. 147-148.
• Li, Changying. (2006). “Location Choice in a Mixed Oligopoly”. Economic Modelling. 23. 131-141
• Lu, Yuanzhu.and Poddar, Sougata. (2005) “Mixed Oligopoly and The Choise of Capacity”. Research in Economics. 59. 365-374.
• Lu, Yuanzhu. (2006) “Endogenous Timing in a Mixed Oligopoly with Foreign Competitors: the Linear Demand Case”. Journal of Economics. Vol.88. No.1. 49-68.
• Lu, Yuanzhu. (2007a) “Endogenous Timing in a Mixed Oligopoly Consisting of a Single Public Firm and Foreign Competitiors”. Economic Bulletin. Vol.12. No.12. 1-7.
• Lu, Yuanzhu. (2007b) “Endogenous Timing in a Mixed Oligopoly: Another Forgotten Equilibrium”. Economics Letters. 94.226-227.
• Matsumura, Toshihiro. (1998) “Partial Privatization in Mixed Duopoly”. Journal of Public Economics. 70. 473- 483.
• Matsumura, Toshihiro.and Kanda, Osamu. (2005). “Mixed Oligopoly at Free Entry Markets”. Journal of Economics. Vol.84. No.1. 27-48.
• Matsumura,Toshihiro. (2003) “Stackelberg Mixed Duopoly with A Foreign Competitor”. Bulletin of Economic Research. 55:3. 275-287.
• Matsushima, Noriaki.and Matsumura, Toshihiro. (2006). “Mixed Oligopoly, Foreign Firms. and Location Choise”. Regional Science and Urban Economics.36. 753-772.
• Matsushima, Noriaki.and Matsumura, Toshihiro. (2003a). “Mixed Oligopoly with Product Differentiation: Sequential Choise of Location”. Australian Economics Papers. 42. 18-34.
• Matsushima, Noriaki.and Matsumura, Toshihiro. (2003b). “Mixed Oligopoly and Spatial Agglomeration”. Canadian Journal of Economics. Vol.36. No.1. 62-87.
• Ngo, Duc De.and Okura, Mahito. (2006). “Competition in a Mixed Duopoly Market”. Economic Bulletin. Vol.12 No.20. 1-9.
• Pal, Debashis. (1996). “Endogenous Stackelberg Equilibria with Identical Firms”. Games and Economic Behaviour. 12. 81-94.
• Pal, Debashis. (1998). “Endogenous Timing in a Mixed Oligopoly”. Economics Letters. 61. 181-185.